This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IZAK (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 15 February 2008 (→Deletion of synagogue articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:35, 15 February 2008 by IZAK (talk | contribs) (→Deletion of synagogue articles)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
Idea for Talmud articles
I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:
I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Misplaced Pages to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- If someone can start it, I can do part of yiush, all of chazokoh and most of eidim zomemin --Shuliavrumi (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure this is a project for wikipedia. 1) It is a specialized dictionary-like those for law or medical students. Not a general wiki knowledge. 2) There are several thousand terms and to be useful as reference, at least several hundred would need to be done in an orderly fashion. 3) there are already lists for teaching Talmud- see Anshav LeTalmud or Avraham Korman, has a volume. It might be better to translate one of these volumes. 4) To be clear and precise, I am not sure that the ad hoc definitions are sufficient, they need to be thought through. It is a technical knowledge. 5) Is the goal to present an Encyclopedia Talmudit? Just Hazal and basic rishonim? or are people going to start giving online chaburas on chazakah comparing Rav Shimon to Brisk? 6) Maybe this should be posted - and hosted- on one of the halkhic or mehanech listserves? 7) Finally, we never fished putting up Rabbinic biographies, a basic need of an encyclopedia, due to editors spending more time on contemporary Rabbinic politics than working in a systematic way. Just some first thoughts, ----Jayrav (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Shaul avrom: I disagree with User:Jayrav. I will comment on that. Thanks for responding. See how you go by clicking on these links and fill in with you know: Yiush; Chazokoh; Eidim zomemin. I have created Category:Talmud concepts and terminology which is now a sub-category of Category:Talmud. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayrav: Thank you for the thoughtfull input. In response to your points: (1) This is no different to any field of knowledge. These articles would not be "dictionary" items. For example, they would be no different than the multitude of articles that explain Category:Medicine which also happens to have a sub-categeory of Category:Medical terms or Category:Philosophy that has a sub-category for Category:Philosophical terminology. Indeed, Misplaced Pages has a large parent category devoted to Category:Terminology alone. (2) The amount of terms does not matter. See Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, all within other Misplaced Pages guidelines of course. (3) Books can and should be sources for the articles on Misplaced Pages, but that does not mean that Misplaced Pages shouldn't have articles just because there are books already. (With that kind of reasoning there would not be a Misplaced Pages at all...). (4) Good, the edits and oversight of expert editors in the field will be key. That is how it is with all articles, but it does not mean that they should not be started. (5) The goal is not to imitate anyone or anything, it would be and is Misplaced Pages in action. Misplaced Pages would use the sources you mention if the editors can get to it and have the skills of using and posting them as sources. (6) This suggestion makes no sense. We are talking about enriching and enhancing Misplaced Pages's spectrum of articles relating to the Talmud. (7) There are plenty of rabbinic biographies up already. All the main commentators are up. If there are those still to add then it can be done, but that project in no way limits this one. They would be mutually beneficial. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that there is already Category:Chabad terminology. The Talmud is not deserving of less honor than Chabad! IZAK (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- IZAK asked me for my opinion in this debate. I am not sure if separate pages on this subject are useful, and I tend towards Jayrav's view. I was initially hesitant when lifnei iver was created and even sent it to AFD. There is an almost immediate risk of verifiability problems, and it will be difficult telling such pages from a how-to manual.
- There is a lot more to be said for somewhat longer pages enumerating various concepts under a general header, all supported with good sources. For instance, a separate page dealing both with Rabbi Yishmael's 13 middos and rabbi Akiva's 32 would be much more useful than separate pages on kal vachomer, gezeira shava, binyan av etc - just because it provides more context. There is also an urgent need to point out parallels between Talmudic logic and similar reasoning trends in other legal systems, so the content generated does not "hang in the air". JFW | T@lk 07:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Dr. Wolf. We should start with "concepts under a general header" and expand as necessary. One candidate for a framework could be Samuel ha-Nagid's Mevo ha-Talmud.
- Also, if we do go ahead - regardless of whether the entries are separate pages or contained within a general article - we must define a structure and stick to it..
- Fintor (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: Please be conscious of the fact that we have advanced from earlier years when there were hardly any articles relating to the Talmud and the Oral Torah in general. Over the past few years there has been a great increase in the number of articles and the quality of material in them has been steadily improving. A good example is all the extraordinary work on the articles linked to {{Rabbinical Literature}} and see the contents of Category:Talmud for more. The broad framework has definitely been set up on Misplaced Pages and we cannot escape the new frontier that beckons whereby there now comes a need to create articles for and with content that come from the great sources, and none is greater than the Mishnah and the Gemara, not "lists" or "lexicons" with pithy "definitions" since that is not what Misplaced Pages is about. There is more than enough material on the Internet, let alone books, to create good articles about Talmudic concepts and terminology. We may as well face the music now because this is inevitable. This may also be a good opportunity to put together material that will counter the gross distortions and lies that emanate from pseudo-sites, many of which are very antisemitic, like "sacred-texts", "Truth about the Talmud: Racist, Rabbinic Hate Literature", come-and-hear", "The Talmud: A Jewish-Supremacist Doctrine", The Talmud Unmasked", "The Talmud: Destroying Christian Cultures" and many, many others, very unfortunately like these. Creating articles that will present Talmudic terminology and concepts in clear NPOV and in readable terms will go a long way to counter the fraudulent culture of hate and prejudice against the Talmud and sadly against Jews. These are just some of the basic issues that make this initiative very important, and timely. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what your problem is with sacred-texts and come-and-hear. They are useful resources. --Eliyak T·C 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've always found sacred-texts.com to be okay, but come-and-hear.com is run by some very sick people . — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Come-and-Hear.com has two problems. One is that it's chock full of anti-semitic drivel. The other is that the copy of the Gemara they have there is illegal. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support the idea. If someone wants to make a list of topics and advise me of it, I'll choose one or two topics to write about. Misplaced Pages's structure allows for links to related articles from the perspective of common law. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with IZAK here. These concepts represent the nuts and bolts of classical Talmudic scholarship, and articles on the key intellectual concepts are just as important to understanding the field as articles on key mathematical, philosophical, and sociological concepts are essential to understanding the fields of mathematics, philosophy, or sociology. It seems to me this is what a comprehensive encyclopedia is for. I also don't see how a policy argument against can be made given the publication of editions of the Talmud with commentaries explaining many of these concepts in English. My suggestion would be to use the transliterations found in the Schottenstein edition of the Talmud which is probably the most notable source that translates and explains these concepts. The Schottenstein's edition's English commentary is generally based on Rashi. If we start with only those concepts the Schottenstein Edition and similar works choose to translate, and there are hundreds, and if we use commentaries from these kinds of sources over editors' own explanations, I don't see why there would be any verifiability problem here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: It might be useful to either have a section in Talmud introducing these doctrines and concepts or have a separate article. It might also be useful to have a list or category and to ask people creating articles to add them to the list. The need for structure is a valid one, but I see no need for it to prevent the development of content. Content and structure can develop together as is the case for Misplaced Pages articles generally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am against this idea. As far as I am aware, the dissemination of the Oral Law is only permitted among Jews. As wikipedia hosts many other subjects, indeed, “everything under the sun”, I feel that if Torah concepts were to be written here, their sanctity would be diminished somewhat. These subjects would be better served on another exclusive website, possibly with the same layout as wikipedia. I am against merging the mundane with the holy. I don’t like the sound of “This is no different to any field of knowledge”, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I understand your point, I disagree. The fact that anyone can read these articles doesn't mean you're disseminating it to anyone other than people who actively seek it by searching for the relevant terms. If you want to argue that these articles shouldn't be linked to other than from other Jewish law and Talmudic articles, that I can understand. But to say that they shouldn't be posted at all is like saying you shouldn't publish a book about Gemara because a library might stock it and non-Jews may read it in the library or that you shouldn't make daf yomi shiurim available online, such as at teachittome.org. I also think, as Java7837 said below, as Misplaced Pages is probably the single most important source of information that exists today, allowing people interested in Gemara to gain the tools necessary to do so more easily is something that can be a tremendous positive. Sh76us (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the dissemination of the both Torahs is only permitted among Jews with some exceptions. Yet, wikipedia is a encyclopedia that is supposed to be about everything, Do you suggest articles that relate to the Talmud and the Written Torah should be deleted? Should pictures be removed from articles, since some groups considers pictures to be absolutely forbidden, Thirdly, why would a non-Jew look up say, Bishul Yisrael, Fourtly I have learned more than half of what I know from reading Orthodox Judaism from reading wikipedia articles, I have read 10,000's of articles literally, Fourtly from reading Jewish articles, and some other factors caused be to become more interested in my faith, and eventually become Orthodox. I learned about the midrashim, and Rashi, etc. from wikipedia, and eventually bought some Jewish books, Finally today I just learned what, Kavod HaBriyot, is (I may have heard the word earlier, but I can't recall, learning it before) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As Shirahadasha implies above, we just need to be sure to focus on notable terms, which will show up in a reasonable range of traditional and scholarly sources. Meanwhile, there are already articles on terms, such as Nafka mina, that are weak stubs and could be improved. HG | Talk 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I put in a request that Sephardi transliteration be consistently used rather than Ashkenazi? E.g. shabbat rather than shobbos? As per the Encyclopedia Judaica transliteration rules, for example. Jheald (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that English translations are best whenever possible. (ie, oaths in Jewish Law instead of Nedarim). Jon513 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Schottenstein Edition editors chose to transliterate rather than translate these concepts. One reason they gave, which I think is sound, is that the meaning of these terms is subject to both technical subtleties and disputes. For example, a nedar is but one of several kinds of oaths. In a nedar, one is vowing not to make use of property (ones own or others) or to make ones property unavailable to others. Different kinds of oaths have different specialized meanings. It's different from, let's say, a cherem (which from a Talmudic point is (roughly speaking) to persons what a neder is to property), a shevua, etc. (See the text of Kol Nidrei for other terms. Every one one of the terms listed in that formula is a legally distinct type of formal declaration with a legally different meaning.) The existence of pre-defined classes of oaths (so that courts will assume that one intended an oath of a pre-defined class and will try to determine what class was meant) has some analogies to the classes of property conveyance and court decisions about deed language in Anglico-American law in which there are a set of classes of conveyance and deed language is construed under an assumption the conveyor knows the classes and intended the conveyance to fall into one of them. Would it make sense (to continue the analogy) to title the Misplaced Pages article on Fee simple as "Property conveyance" (or Tenancy in common as "property ownership") simply because they are the most common kinds of conveyance/ownership and the ones lay people are most likely to have heard of? How would we explain and distinguish "Fee tail" (or Tenancy by the entirety) and the various other relatively obscure forms? As in any legal field, better to use the terminology that specialists in the field use, rather than develop our own, original-research, lay terminology that may (as in the example) fail to definitively identify the concept or distinguish it from other concepts that lay people may not recognize as different but which specialists distinguish. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find this idea very interesting. I have already dones some basic work on the Shev Shmaytsa page. I do not think that seperate pages for Yiush, Chazakah, Rov, etc. are really in place for Misplaced Pages (I would love to see a seperate project along similar lines with in depth discussions of these) but a general page for Talmudic Terminologies or whatever seems appropriate. At is we will need to include, Is Migo a Birur or a Zechus HaTaanah? Is Chazakah a birur or Hanahaga? How does Hodaas Baal Din K'Maiaha Eidim work? That is for a seperate project.Wolf2191 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Postage stamps and postal history of Israel
Done
For the stamp collectors among us, there is no article yet for Postage stamps and postal history of Israel (part of Category:Postal history by country) that would have so many Jewish themes. Feel free to go ahead and start it. (See the other country's in Category:Postage stamps by country that have theirs.) Nothing for Israel on Category:Postage stamps by country neither on List of country articles containing postal sections nor on List of philatelic bureaus. (but just a teeny note on Israel at Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Io - Iz).) This is truly a great shame and pity because Israel, and before that when it was the British Mandate produced and continues to issue the most beautiful and extensive stamps by any country. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely this is a job for WP:ISRAEL and WP:PHIL, given that there are preciously few religious issues with Israel's stamps? JFW | T@lk 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dr. Wolff. Israel has been extraordinarily prolific with its stamp publishing. Just having a casual knowledge of its stamps, there have been untold mutiple series on the Jewish holidays, Biblical themes and topics, and subjects from Jewish history, and much more. But I have placed notices on a few other pages to give this subject greater exposure. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I started the article, will submit for a Did you know...? entry & would welcome a collaborator. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The DYK for the new the Israel stamps article is on the Main Page, with an image. Feel free to help expand the article. Cheers. HG | Talk 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
source checking
I would like someone to check a source add to Judaism's view of Jesus about Milton Steinberg's view of jesus' life (this edit). A link to Amazon's search insider feature of his book is here, but needs an account that has made a purchase on amazon in the past. Jon513 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I checked out their search inside the book feature, his page numbers are off, it's on 104, and I'm not sure what the exact context is, I see this "... who is incidently the Jesus of many liberal Christians. To Jews, that Jesus appears as an extraordinarily beautiful and noble spirit, aglow with love and pity for men, ..."
NachMS (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
hot off the press, and needs work:
Shomer Shabath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcrewer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've had the audacity of merging the relevant content with Shabbat under its own header. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi I added alot more data and refs, moved it back to an article. Want to help DYK it? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Fow now I would say such a topic goes with Shabbat, otherwise there will then be a article for Mechalel Shabbat as well. There should definitely be an explanation of what Halachah has traditionally defined as either a Shomer or Mechalel Shabbat. And then one has to deal with the gamut of the different denominations' acceptance/rejection of traditional Halachic norms, definitions and rulings. IZAK (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The mekhallel shabbat is mentioned in Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and does deserve more fuller treatment there. I also noted it in Shomer Shabbat, thanks. I think the mekhallel is a more interesting and contentious term, with much more halakhic significance. While it's obviously central to Judaism to observe the sabbath, the term itself is notable yet tame. Speaking of which, shavua tov, Izak! HG | Talk 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would somebody kindly do me a favor and add the Hebrew phrase to the beginning of Shomer Shabbat? Thanks! HG | Talk 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. JFW | T@lk 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your all your help. Shomer Shabbat is currently mentioned as a Did you know... on the Main page. All the best, HG | Talk 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Talmud
I'm not sure what to make of recent changes to Talmud. Apart from being completely unreferenced, there may be some NPOV problems. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hebrew words in Yiddish
Reposted for continued broader discussion here from User talk:IZAK#Mashpia: Yiddish?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Background: There are two categories: Category:Hebrew words and phrases and Category:Yiddish words and phrases. Recently I have added words to the Yidish category that are derived from Hebrew because of their accepted common usage in Yiddish. As a result of that the following discussion has ensued IZAK (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC):
You've added Mashpia to the cat of Yiddish words. Isn't it a Hebrew word? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Yehoishophot Oliver: Yiddish is half Germanic and half Hebrew and lots of other words. I am being very careful. Yes, the origin of the word Mashpiah is from Hebrew, but it is widely used in Yiddish. Such as "er is mashpiah oif dem andern" or when Lubavitchers are speaking Yiddish then it automatically becomes a Yiddish word even if it's from Hebrew. Like "bracha" in "mach a brocha" is totally Yiddish even though "bracha/brocha" is a word of Hebrew origin and used in Hebrew. There are multitudes of words from Hebrew that get used in Yiddish like this and this has been the situation for about a thousand years since the advent of Yiddish. Thanks for asking and feel free to check with me. Good Shabbos ("Shabbos" is a Hebrew word too!) IZAK (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with YO that words that are not actually Yiddish should not be in Category:Yiddish words and phrases. The fact that Yiddish borrows much of its vocabulary from Hebrew and Aramaic does IMHO not mean that those words automatically become Yiddish words, much like raison d'être and Entente cordiale do not become English phrases because they are used by English speakers in otherwise English sentences. JFW | T@lk 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will prove to you how absolutely wrong you are!!!! This is a weird discussion and you may not be that familiar with the variety and richness of legitimate Yiddish usage. Question: So is "Sholom Aleichem" only "Hebrew"? How about "Oy Vey" when both are from the Hebrew, "Oy mehaya lanu", from the Kinnos, and "vey" or "Vaai" is from the Hebrew "Vaai"? Or how about "Yiddish" script and print which uses only the Hebrew letters and hence an "alef" in Hebrew is an "alef" in Yiddish and a bes in Hebrew is a bes in Yiddish and a "gimmel" in Hebrew is a gimmel in Yiddish ALL THE WAY THRU the entire Hebrew/Yiddish alphabet (including vowels) because there is NO "Yiddish" alphabet as such since it uses only the Hebrew one with the exact same names for its letters, there's your conjoining at the heart of the alefbes. Anyhow, as I have pointed out I am being super-meticulous about this. Sure, not every single Hebrew or Aramaic word took root in Yiddish diction and literature, just as not every Germanic or Slavic word was absorbed into it, and in our days, not every English word has been absorbed into Yiddish, but once a word gains widespread usage within Yiddish, especially from Hebrew and Old German it is entirely Yiddish. Dr. Wolff, your examples from French to English are not the same because they are small rarities in English, whereas without its Hebrew words, the Yiddish language does not exist. You know, there was a class of Yiddishists in the Soviet Union that used to sit around thinking up ways to rid Yiddish of its Hebrew words and when they utilised Yiddish it sounded more like wannabe German, but they never succeeded in ripping Hebrew from Yiddish since the languages are inherently inseperable. But as I said, I would not automatically class every Hebrew word with Yiddish, it must take a good degree of expertise and familiarity with both languages to see just how much Hebrew is the basis of Yiddish and that there is no getting away from it. Thanks for your attentive ears, and please let me have your feedback. Finally, "mashpiah" is definitely a Yiddish word as I am looking in the Harkavy Yiddish-English Dictionary (22nd edition, 1898, Hebrew Publishing Company) right now as I am typing this here, and I am looking at the Yiddish section, and for the YIDDISH word written in Yiddish, meaning Hebrew print, because there is no other way of writing or printing Yiddish, it clearly says that "משפיע" (mashpiah) means "to influence to instil" and to show you how flexible Yiddish is, when I look up "Influence" it says that it means "איינפלוס" (einflus) and "ווירקונג" (virkung) with einflus and virkung also being the Yiddish for "influence" and "effect" the same as the Hebrew "mashpiah" so that this illustrates the ambidexterous dual way Yiddish functions bowing to and drawing from both its Germanic and Hebraic sides SIMULTANEOUSLY, as confirmed by Harkavy, not that I needed him, but it should serve as proof that a Hebrew word is as much part of Yiddish as a Germanic word that says the same thing. And no doubt in the Slavic lands they had equivalant words that could serve up a third tier of words, and in America, Yiddish is the main language of all the Hasidic groups and they have absorbed of lot of English diction so that a "window" in Yiddish to most of them is a "vinda" a computer is a "kompuetter" (sounded with the same pronounciation sounds as "kompot") but we are not going that far here (yet). With Hebrew it is far different because Yiddish and Hebrew have been joined since the inception of Yiddish over a thousand years ago in the lands of Ashkenaz. Ol de best, alts gutz, Koil Tiv! IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Every Hebrew word will turn into a Yiddish word if used in a Yiddish sentence. The category is endless. Am interested to hear what other users have to say, but I find the whole categorisation of Hebrew and Yiddish words a bit overkill. JFW | T@lk 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dr Wolff: I know exactly what you mean BUT, and it's a pertinent but, because I am precisely NOT talking about "random" Hebrew words, but rather those words that are so well used and ingrained that they can make it into a basic dictionary. I assure you that my 1898 Harkavy English-Hebrew dictionary does not have every single Hebrew word used in Yiddish but only those that have found their way into common Yiddish usage. To prove my point, just take a look at the "List of English words of Yiddish origin" and notice the multitudes of "Yiddish" words that are derived from pure Hebrew, such as: bris, chutzpah, ganef, golem, goy, kosher, mamzer, maven, mazel tov, meggilah, meshuga, minyan, mishpocha, naches, oy, parev, shlimazel, Shabbos, shamus, shegets, treif, tsuris, tuchus, yontif --- who would ever claim that these words are "not" what they mean in Hebrew as well?, it would be preposterous indeed. And this small sampling is just from people who dumped the words into this list who consider them "Yiddish" when they are pure Hebrew words as well simultaneously, and the same goes for thousands of other words used in Yiddish conversation, diction and literature. This can no longer be overlooked and glossed over. But as I said, and I agree, that not every Hebrew can be classed as having a common Yiddish usage and that is one big proviso that should be posted, that it is preferable that only editors with a good knowledge and fluency in Yiddish should attempt to categorize Hebrew words as also being Yiddish words and that this be monitered and if someone has overshot the mark, it would be very easy to either discuss the matter (as we are doing now) to consider what should be done and if words belong or should be removed, but this cannot be ignore at this time when we have so many Hebrew words with Yiddish applications and usages up already all over Misplaced Pages. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that Yiddish uses Hebrew words so much so that they are by now inseparable from the language, but ... the reason for that historically is that almost all Jews were frum, and so use of words related to (Classical) Hebrew was natural, in much the same way as Aramaic included many, many Hebrew words, or words just barely altered from Hebrew. (I imagine it was the same with Ladino, though I know nothing about that language.) But the word is still Hebrew, just a Hebrew word commonly used in Yiddish! Do you seriously propose to go through the Aramaic dictionary on the Talmud and define on wikipedia every Hebrew Talmudic word that's included there as Aramaic?! I see no difference. The only place in which I'd concede that the Hebrew word can properly be defined as Yiddish is if it's pronunciation and/or meaning is significantly altered from it's Classical Hebrew counterpart. For example, bris (or mashpia) is pronounced the same in both uses, and its meaning is the same, so it doesn't qualify, but the adjective treif, though stemming from the Hebrew word tareif, is 1) pronounced significantly differently, 2) means "not kosher"/invalid/forbidden rather than the strict definition of the Hebrew tareif, which is related to the word tereifa, an animal that has an internal blemish that will cause it to die. Anyway, can we please have more discussion and reach a consensus before this category is posted all over wikipedia. Shekoyach! :) Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Yehoishophot Oliver: Sure the discussion is taking place right here. I must say right off the bat that your insertion about the relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic is a huge red herring, because: (a) We are not discussing Hebrew and Aramaic but Hebrew and Yiddish. If another editor wishes to work on the correlation of Hebrew and Ladino and Spanish or with Aramaic he is free to do so. This is Misplaced Pages and WP:NOT#PAPER. I am focusing on Hebrew/Yiddish only at this point. (b) Hebrew and Aramaic use and spell words differently but Yiddish does not. Yiddish uses the exact same Ashkenazi Hebrew pronounciation for the same Hebrew words using them the same way. Like any words there can be subsequent nuances of meanings as in all languages. But Hebrew and Yiddish words that are used in Yiddish mirror each other whereas Aramaic words have entirely different spellings, whereas Hebrew and Yiddish use the same spelling and the same pronounciation for the same words when it's used in Yiddish. (c) I am not going through nor making any "dictionaries" either on Misplaced Pages or anywhere because WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. What I am doing is looking at words all over, especially in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases and when I see something that is already in that category I take a very close look and if it is obvious that it's also widely used in Yiddish speech and diction then it is only natural and logical that it belongs in Category:Yiddish words and phrases as well, because it has become so widespread in Yiddish usage that it is accepted as a Yiddish word or phrase as much as Mazel Tov and Oy Vey which come from Hebrew are part and parcel of Yiddish as well 100%. (d) I don't know why you mention the "frum" factor because that also has no relevance to this discussion. What you mean to say is that once upon a time most Ashkenazi Jews spoke Yiddish, now it's only a minority, let's say 10% of Ashkenazi Jews who now speak Yiddish, so therefore the majority who does not speak or understand Yiddish has the right to decide which Hebrew words are or are not connected to and used in Yiddish because they do not use the Hebrew words that Yiddish way. But that is a total fallacy because it's like saying, since 90% of Jews are ignorant of or are anti-frum Judaism and are not Orthodox they now have the right to dicate and decide what Judaism is (based on ignorance yet!) because only a small minority of 10% is practicing "frumkeit" (and they do have the knowledge) which would also be a great error of logic, because the decisions about what makes a language or any subject valid or relevant is determined by either those who use it or know about it, and NOT by those who do not use it or know nothing or little about it. (e) Your suggestion that: "The only place in which I'd concede that the Hebrew word can properly be defined as Yiddish is if it's pronunciation and/or meaning is significantly altered from it's Classical Hebrew counterpart" makes no sense. How does this add up? If Yiddish words are identical to Hebrew and used in Yiddish the exact same way they are then "not" "Yiddish" but if they change then they "are" "Yiddish"? Who made up this rule? Sounds like a violation on the spot of WP:NOR to me. There is no such thing as this. If the two words match up then they are definitely part of both languages, simply because they are both the same. Yiddish is not just about words that differ. (If that would be the case then 80% of English would not be English because half of it is Latin and most of the rest is Anglo-Saxon and the 20% that's different would not qualify to form a functional recognizable language!) (f) So it is rather straightforward and will actually be of great benefit to those who do not know Yiddish and those who are "frum-to-be" when they discover and learn just how much Hebrew is used in the Yiddish language and rather than depriving them of this great opportunity it should be encouraged, which would be fulfiling the purpose of an encyclopedia to convey and record information accurately, truthfully and clearly. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that Yiddish uses Hebrew words so much so that they are by now inseparable from the language, but ... the reason for that historically is that almost all Jews were frum, and so use of words related to (Classical) Hebrew was natural, in much the same way as Aramaic included many, many Hebrew words, or words just barely altered from Hebrew. (I imagine it was the same with Ladino, though I know nothing about that language.) But the word is still Hebrew, just a Hebrew word commonly used in Yiddish! Do you seriously propose to go through the Aramaic dictionary on the Talmud and define on wikipedia every Hebrew Talmudic word that's included there as Aramaic?! I see no difference. The only place in which I'd concede that the Hebrew word can properly be defined as Yiddish is if it's pronunciation and/or meaning is significantly altered from it's Classical Hebrew counterpart. For example, bris (or mashpia) is pronounced the same in both uses, and its meaning is the same, so it doesn't qualify, but the adjective treif, though stemming from the Hebrew word tareif, is 1) pronounced significantly differently, 2) means "not kosher"/invalid/forbidden rather than the strict definition of the Hebrew tareif, which is related to the word tereifa, an animal that has an internal blemish that will cause it to die. Anyway, can we please have more discussion and reach a consensus before this category is posted all over wikipedia. Shekoyach! :) Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree with Izak and agree with YO and JFW only because a Title isn't part of the language it is a name of something. like YO has very eloquently eleberated on this that surely Yiddish is in essence comprised from other languages, but if only "Frum" people call it like this its because they use still their Hebrew language when talking about something holy, to notate a 'Hebrew' connection and explicitly not to make it a 'Yiddish' word, just like "Torah" or "Chumesh" isn't a Yiddish word even though there is no alternative in Yiddish, i think "Mashpia" is in the same category. True we use it in daily Yiddish conversations but in essence its still recognized as a Hebrew word.--YY (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Update, i now reread Izak's comments and he says that the the Yiddish Dictionary also has it as a Yiddish term than i must retract my above statement, and do as Izak says, we cannot overrule the professional Harkavi. Thanks Izak for bringing this to our attention.--YY (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yiddisheryid, thank you. As I have said about this subject that one must be super-careful not to over do it, to throw in all the Hebrew words into Yiddish, but on the other hand, there is no way to escape that "even though" Hebrew words are the basis of Yiddish words they cannot be divorced from (the Hebrew words) being Yiddish as well. Just as we cannot divorce the Germanic origins of the other half of Yiddish words to say that if words can be identified as having proven German orgins that they cannot be Yiddish, such a claim would be futile and false. Therefore, because Yiddish is inherently a mixture and fusion of two main languages, (classical) Hebrew with (old) German, the etymology of Yiddish words can most of the time be traced to one of these two languages, the other much smaller segment of Yiddish coming from Slavic languages to a lesser extent. By the way, as with all languages, one finds that the educated classes, tradionally being the Torah scholars, tended to use more Hebrew and some Aramaic in their Yiddish because they were studying the Torah and Talmud and used a lot of those languages that then worked its way into the way they used Yiddish. In later centuries, after the Haskalah, the more educated secular Jews were prone to use more high-class German words in their Yiddish to express themselves. (This can be found in English too because English is also a combination of two languages, Latin and Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language, so that the more educated "higher classes" use the more Latin, i.e. Romance, side of the language, as in legal and medical terms in English that are almost all in Latin, but when speaking "simple English" the tendency is to use the Anglo-Saxon Germanic part of English.) IZAK (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Update, i now reread Izak's comments and he says that the the Yiddish Dictionary also has it as a Yiddish term than i must retract my above statement, and do as Izak says, we cannot overrule the professional Harkavi. Thanks Izak for bringing this to our attention.--YY (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree with Izak and agree with YO and JFW only because a Title isn't part of the language it is a name of something. like YO has very eloquently eleberated on this that surely Yiddish is in essence comprised from other languages, but if only "Frum" people call it like this its because they use still their Hebrew language when talking about something holy, to notate a 'Hebrew' connection and explicitly not to make it a 'Yiddish' word, just like "Torah" or "Chumesh" isn't a Yiddish word even though there is no alternative in Yiddish, i think "Mashpia" is in the same category. True we use it in daily Yiddish conversations but in essence its still recognized as a Hebrew word.--YY (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with IZAK on all points mentioned. --D. Breslauer (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
New stubs to expand
Greetings. I would welcome help with Emanuel Feldman and especially Charles Liebman, which maybe we could turn into a WP:DYK esp if somebody wants to recap some of his major works or the new memorial volume. In addition, I'm concerned about the newly-created Marshall Sklare Award because I got a copyright tag. Can anybody help add some info about the Award that doesn't come from the ASSJ website? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Charles Liebman is no longer a stub and will shortly be on the Main Page, as a DYK. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone want to help make a Did you know? from the new stub on Rebecca bat Meir Tiktiner? Thanks, HG | Talk 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please check this edit
For WP:NPOV. Do all Jews believe the rebuilding of the temple is necessary for the Messiah to return? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is very little that 'all Jews' believe. Adam Sandler and Mel Brooks (and this is an observation, not an evaluation) are secular Jews and probably do not believe in much. They have much in common with the majority of the current Jewish population whose perspective is perhaps not actively against religious consensus as much as it passively indifferent to things that they either never learned about or have no care for. A basic, fundamental concept asserted by numerous prayers included in the liturgy, based on scripture, expresses a desire for a hastening of the final redemption with an emphasis on the return of Jewry to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. If there are Jews who actively campaign against this perspective, they are not only operating outside of the realm of classical Jewish values but are eroding the very essence of the religion. DRosenbach 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reform Judaism actively opposed both the rebuilding of a Temple and the concept of a personal Messiah from early in its development, and systematically rewrote its liturgy to remove all references to them. Conservative Judaism is essentially neutral on the issue, retaining elements of the traditional liturgy but not necessarily interpreting them literally (not necessarily a personal Messiah or physical Temple). So only in Orthodox Judaism is there enough belief in both events personally and physically occurring for the question even to make sense. Orthodox Judaism has no definite belief about which one will come first. Maimonides held that it was a waste of time to speculate on the exact nature or order of eschatological events. However, a lot of people have done it anyway. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, according to the discussion here, I changed the sentence from reading simply "Jews" to "Orthodox Jews". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd add "some" there and perhaps remove the reference to Jews entirely. It's not an article of Orthodox faith that the Temple needs to be rebuilt in order for the Messiah to return. Many Orthodox Jews believe the exact opposite, that it is necessary for the Messiah to return in order for the Temple to be rebuilt. And still others believe both events will happen, but don't claim to know in which order. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- CORRECTION: No Jews of any persuasion believe in the "return" of any Messiah. The idea of a "return" (second coming) is a purely Christian belief. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I had already edited the article with this point taken into account. Secondly, it is not a belief of Orthodox Judaism -- it is the belief of Judaism. Why do the articles on Judaism not specifically state that practices are performed or binding only on Orthodoxy? The answer is because they are binding on all Jews. Irreligious Jews of the Conservative, Reform or any other persuasion do what they do in disregard to the laws, though most probably not deliberately because they were raised without a proper appreciation for the correct manner in which to act. Why is there a liberal bias to Jewish references? If there are splinter groups that redraw the rules of engagement, why are they given any special status as transmitters of the faith? Granted, they are unfortunately in the majority, but even so, that is a only a current phenomenon -- historically, there have been more Torah-observant Jews than Torah-non-observant Jews. How can the illegitimate views of corrupt Jews be expressed as the standard of practice? DRosenbach 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Shira's edit that changes the sentence to "Jews await the initial arrival of a Messiah of the House of David, or a Messianic age." is very good. It avoids the relatively minor issue of when the temple is built (if at all) and focus on the major theme in Judaism of a "messianic age" which has universal (or near universal) agreement. Jon513 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Rambam Hilchoth Melachim, he says that one of the things the Messiah will do is rebuild the temple, meaning he comes before. Furthermore, "Messiah to return", is not a Jewish idea. NachMS (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps most of the above thread could be copied to article (and removed here)? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Who cares what the Rambam says? Apparently not the Conservative or Reform Jews. If they were interested in following Judaism as dictated by the Rambam, they wouldn't be Conservative or Reform? How is it that consensus of irreligious, misguided and misinformed individuals trumps sourced tradition of legitimacy? DRosenbach 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch?
Seems that User Lysy (talk · contribs) has just added articles about Jewish Gestapo and a "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch who worked with.for the Shomer HaTzair? Is this legit? Sounds very odd and the sources seem POV antisemitic. I redirected Jewish Gestapo to Group 13. See also some of the "funny" discussions at Talk:Tykocin pogrom. IZAK (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Evil Picture Removal
I would just ask the administators and authors to remove the evil pictures from WikiProject Judaism, such is not found in any other template and it causes a Chillul Hashem. Wikiplantjud (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you need your sense of humour BIOS flashed. In what way, exactly, do these pictures constitute "evil" and "Chillul Hashem"? JFW | T@lk 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
While these pictures are not evil and are far short of a chilul Hashem, they are very stupid and really not becoming. Actually I agree 100% with User Wikiplantjud (talk · contribs) and I had once tried to remove them myself but someone put them back in. They are not appropraite for a serious project like this. If it's a sense of humor we desire in everyone, or comedy we want, maybe we should then put in pictures of Jewish comedians such as:
Sacha Baron Cohen aka as Borat:
or how about Jerry Seinfeld:
.jpg)
or even the Marx Brothers:
Maybe now is good time to change for something better. Since this is about Judaism primarily, how about a photo of something holy and/or significant to Judaism? Surely that can be found. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- So the pictures are not "evil and Chillul Hashem", they're just silly. But does it all need to be serious? It's a long time 'till Purim. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like we do have an evil and stupid picture. Here's one. It says right on the picture label, "Is stupid and evil". Isn't that a reliable source?:
Come to think of it, this one probably isn't quite putting our best foot forward, either:
Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- However much I admire Photoshop skills by Masterhomer (talk · contribs), I think an alternative picture would put an end to this highly exciting discussion. Anyone in the mood to design a pretty logo? JFW | T@lk 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have been browsing through Category:Jewish images for something of a good enough artistic, and symbolic value that has a good enough photographic clarity. I happen to like these:
Image:Decalogue parchment by Jekuthiel Sofer 1768.jpg, it is a little dark though, but it's on the {{WPRT2}}, the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religious texts template, see more choices at Category:Images of Jewish literature:
and I happen to like the Mogen Dovid at Image:JudaismSymbol.PNG
See more possibilities at Category:Images of Star of David. Just some ideas. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Masterhomer here, original creator of those images. I made them when I redesigned the WikiProject page. You can see a long list of anything (including names) can be quite boring without pictures. Misplaced Pages's featured lists is full of lists with many pictures. However, I don't have any problems replacing them though if anyone finds them offensive. Masterhomer 
20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Problematic new Christian/Jewish template
Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling {{Books of the Bible}} template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon
This letter was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders. I will be expanding the page in the future, but I'm looking for someone who might be able to locate a Hebrew website that features the letter in it's original Judeo-Arabic. I know the historian who discovered the letter, S.D. Goitein, first presented his findings in a Hebrew magazine, but I do not know the title of the article. All I know is that it appeared in Zion 17 (1951-52), 129-47. That's all of the citation that I know. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wives of the Karaite exilarchs
What where the names and backgrounds of the wives of the Karaite exilarchs Hezekiah ben Solomon and his son Hasdai ben Hezekiah? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Convert and Baal Teshuvah Biography Project
What's the best way to enlist some assistance in updating biography information for Converts and Returnees?Tim (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Brief Description:The project will list people who need biographies and books that can be useful for writing the articles about said people. The group will also try to add already existing articles to the Baalei Teshuva or convert category if the articles belong there. Also most convert articles should be listed on the convert list--Java7837 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the normal process should be followed. Are you sure a dedicated project is needed? Apart from some specific exceptions, converts and returnees would not get a Misplaced Pages article unless notable for some other reason. If you need sourcing or assistance on a particular person, just drop a note here and see what happens. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- We're only interested in adding people who are notable, or those for whom the fact of conversion itself is notable -- such as clergy from other religions. Right now the normal process is lagging behind. On the list of converts page, for instance, we have a bunch of names that were added a few months ago that still don't have their own articles. I had to resurrect the Asher Wade article from the dead. A lot of the former clergy have been too cagey to document (I know one who is still waiting to be notable for other reasons before 'coming out'). I've emailed a few that I know personally who are on the list, looking for the best bio sources. The problem is that a number of them are documented in full books (and buying twenty books for a Wiki article is a bit much for a single editor to do), and at least one only has his bio on audio. So, we're trying to hunt down what's verifiable and notable, adding what should be added, and deleting the name if it truly does not meet notability standards.Tim (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe all of the people on the converts list were notable enough to deserve their own article--Java7837 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Kabbalah
The Kabbalah article once contained many non-Jewish sections. However, as it now stands, the article is given entirely to traditional Jewish Kabbalah, and I would like to see the Project Judaism template added to it. (The non-Jewish sections have been moved to their own articles.) The article is in very bad shape, and I hope that some editors who are knowledgeable in the subject (which I am not) will improve it. Kabbalah has long been an important force in Judaism, and it should have a quality article that reflects its importance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem, on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, is that Kabbalah means different things to different people. Many seem to think that Kabbalah is the same as Occultism, which is a mistake. Others mistake it for Mysticism, which it is to a certain degree but not alone.
- When dealing with articles in a bad shape I would start by finding good sources. Sadly, there are not many Jewish sources in English that offer an accessible and systematic approach to Kabbalah; some of Aryeh Kaplan's works? JFW | T@lk 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, different things for different people; like the word "God" or "peace." In Carlo Suarez's CIPHER OF GENESIS he claims that the Aleph-Tav are Hieroglyphs, spiritual glyphs(spirit = non-material part of man-- intuition, inbtellect). He uses the term cabala to define this knowledge system and its use. He gives the values of the Hieroglyphs. It is not "beyond the intellect", mystical. In late '65 or '66 I read an article in the Sunday supplement to the NYT which held that a Jewish male over 40 who had memorized Torah and read all of Talmud and other writings could apply to be taught the significance of each "letter" of the Aleph-Tav: if he promised not to speak of this until he was 50. Suarez writes that the 40 and 50 indicate Mem and Noun, not age Mem is a period of formation. In the New Testament the Pharisees are written to have said to Jesus, "why are you talking of these things and you are not yet 50?" Carlo writes that there was an "opening of cabala" in the '60s(now closed). He thought physicists would be most likely to find interest in the formulas of Hieroglyphs in Torah. As a Physics graduate student at the time it made perfect sense. We, by consensus, use well defined symbols. We are trained to "feel" formulas of these symbols. By chance I was forty when CYPHER OF GENESIS found me. I am reasonably certain that there are editors who will not instantly forbid a page termed Carlo Suarez Cabala. I am hoping you're one.Johnshoemaker (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt that is a problem, but at the top of the article is: This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For other western Kabbalistic and esoteric mystical traditions see Hermetic Qabalah, Christian Kabbalah, Emanation: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Kabbalah Ma'asit. I think that makes the subject of the article clear. (I removed also Kabbalah Ma'asit to a separate article; because, although it is Jewish, every rabbi I have spoken to said it is forbidden.) Kabbalah continues to be an important force in Judaism, and I see no reason why the name should be surrendered to the distortions of for profit groups like the 'Kabbalah Center'. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that there is a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kabbalah, although of course there's lots of overlap. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not all Project Kabbalah Is Jewish. I think it is important to have a Kabbalah article that presents what Kabbalah really is...a part of Judaism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- There have historically been many people who have practiced a form of mysticism that they have called "Kabbalah" and is loosely based on concepts from the "Jewish" Kabbalah, adulterated with concepts from other religions. I don't think we can deny that this exists, and should work to clarify that this "parakabbalah" has been detached from its Jewish roots. It should also be clear that modern Judaism has been heavily influenced by Kabbalah, but that it is only one of its many influences. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahmed Deedat
Please direct attention to the Ahmed Deedat page , where anonymous vandals keep removing mention of his antisemitism and anti-Christian rhetoric. Saws38 (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are a Wikiproject on Judaism, not antisemitism. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation
User Avraham (talk · contribs) prodded the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation article and I am disputing his move. Please add to the article and see the talk page at Talk:Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, please fix the sourcing and notability issues. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. But you could have just easily done it yourself because you know full well it's an important organization and it has lots of sources about it online and in print. Your wording justifying your prod was also pretty lame, that: "Not every anti-Lashon Hara organization is notable. Nor is every Monsey organization" -- was really silly and uncalled for because there are no other notable organizations like it in the frum world! That was no way to conduct business. Next time, if you see the problem, fix it yourself instead of threatening to delete it which is never a good "tactic". How would it look on your "resume" that you deleted the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation article? IZAK (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is little doubt about notability. WP:POINT? JFW | T@lk 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates
Am I the only person who has a problem with the title of this article?--Kimdime69 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- What problem do you have with it? --MPerel 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- My problem is that this article is about antisemitism in UAE and about UAE-Israel relations, it's not about the "history of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates", anyway I'm not sure that a jewish community existed in this country.--Kimdime69 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is probably a more suitable discussion to bring up at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jewish history, since it's not about Judaism, the focus of this project. --MPerel 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kimdime69: The Jews, as long-time residents and citizens of all areas in the Middle East have been part and parcel of all parts of the Arabian Peninsula as well. The information varies from location to location. As part of a series on the History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula the fact that the UAE dedicates so much effort and time to the question of Jews, makes it part of its own focus on Jewish history by default. Would you prefer that the article be called Antisemitism of the United Arab Emirates which it documents very well? IZAK (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: See the important new additional information with citations added at History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates#Early history based on the notable journey of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela to that part of the world 1165-1173. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The concern etc remind me somewhat of the discussion at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. HG | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi HG: In both cases I added even more material about the internal Jewish history of those countries. It seems that people do not realize that the recent regimes of these countries have chosen to ignoreand suppress that their modern-day countries are on top of territory that over the last three millenia have had Jews living there. Some countries in the Arabian Peninsula still have small numbers of Jews living in them, and others have proven historical records of large numbers of Jews having lived and thrived there at various times and eras. So the concerns are unfounded because there are written sources and more of them are being posted online about the history of the Jews in almost any point on the Arabian Peninsula, indeed anywhere in the Middle East. IZAK (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The concern etc remind me somewhat of the discussion at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. HG | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
List of Jewish Jewelers!
Hey I think its a great idea to add a section dedicated to Jewish Jewelers. There are many prominent Jewish Jewelers out there; enough to make a whole sction about. Im new to wikipedia but I think someone with more knowledge can create this.Levi Seigel (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A list is useless unless its members have Misplaced Pages articles. Could you provide us with a list of notable Jewish jewelers? JFW | T@lk 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Two is company, three is a crowd. I see no point in a list with two names! JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of synagogue articles
In the past few days User Bstone (talk · contribs) has been nominating and prodding articles about various synagogues for deletion. I am not sure what his criteria are over-all, but such sweeping actions need more attention from a greater spectrum of Judaic editors familiar with the issues as well as with the Misplaced Pages policies that should or should not be applied. See his contributions to follow his moves. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can kind of understand why he is doing it. Some of the articles are only a single sentence.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... and at least one of them was stub-length and established the synagogue's notability in the first few words. Go figure. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume that User:Bstone is acting in good faith and doing what he thinks is in the encyclopedia's best interest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Malik: Indeed, we are all here to act in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. And some of us understand that articles do not sprout up overnight and that lots more time may be needed. Articles cannot grow in content, scope and qaulity overnight if legitimate seedlings are uprooted before they are given time to grow and develop more fully as mature articles. Sure, by all means, choosing a synagogue article here and there to delete is legitimate, but for any editor to set himself up as a kind of "grand inquisitor" of synagogues and arbitrarily, in effect, abuse Misplaced Pages guidleines as an excuse to eliminate many potential articles is very worrying. Most of the synagogue articles and stubs have been created and written in good faith by editors from all denominations of JUdaism over many years. Some aren't even actie as they used to be. This needs to be handled in respectable manner and not in a "mass killing" fashion. Such a decision, as to what to do about a collection of stub articles in any subject that one feels should be either improved or "eliminated" should be brought to a greater number of editors in order to attain WP:CONSENSUS that such moves are truly motivated by what's best for Misplaced Pages and not by some pretty obvious desire to wield an axe in some sort of not so subtle edit-war against synagogue articles. We do not need a Misplaced Pages version of Kristalnacht -- and yes it's that sensitive a topic! It is worrying and needs to be addressed. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... and at least one of them was stub-length and established the synagogue's notability in the first few words. Go figure. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume that User:Bstone is acting in good faith and doing what he thinks is in the encyclopedia's best interest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)